Why One and Two Do Not Make Three: Dictionary Form Revisited

The primary aim of the article is to compare the usefulness of paper and electronic versions of OALDCE7 (Wehmeier 2005) for language encoding, decoding and learning. It is explained why, in contrast to Dziemianko's (2010) findings concerning COBUILD6 (Sinclair 2008), but in keeping with her obs...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Anna Dziemianko
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	AF DE EN FR NL
Publicado:	Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal-WAT 2012
Materias:	paper dictionaries electronic dictionaries dictionary use encoding decoding retention research methods replication menus highlighting noise access entry length Philology. Linguistics P1-1091 Languages and literature of Eastern Asia, Africa, Oceania PL1-8844 Germanic languages. Scandinavian languages PD1-7159
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/13176fbf4d404a6e8672ab2ebbf770e8
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:13176fbf4d404a6e8672ab2ebbf770e8
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:13176fbf4d404a6e8672ab2ebbf770e82021-12-03T06:45:05ZWhy One and Two Do Not Make Three: Dictionary Form Revisited10.5788/22-1-10031684-49042224-0039https://doaj.org/article/13176fbf4d404a6e8672ab2ebbf770e82012-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://lexikos.journals.ac.za/pub/article/view/1003https://doaj.org/toc/1684-4904https://doaj.org/toc/2224-0039The primary aim of the article is to compare the usefulness of paper and electronic versions of OALDCE7 (Wehmeier 2005) for language encoding, decoding and learning. It is explained why, in contrast to Dziemianko's (2010) findings concerning COBUILD6 (Sinclair 2008), but in keeping with her observations (Dziemianko 2011) with regard to LDOCE5 (Mayor 2009), the e-version of OALDCE7 proved to be no better for language reception, production and learning than the dictionary in book form. An attempt is made to pinpoint the micro- and macrostructural design features which make e-COBUILD6 a better learning tool than e-OALDCE7 and e-LDOCE5. Recommendations concerning further research into the significance of the medium (paper vs. electronic) in the process of dictionary use conclude the study. The secondary aim which the paper attempts to achieve is to present the status of replication as a scientific research method and justify its use in lexicography.Anna DziemiankoWoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal-WATarticlepaper dictionarieselectronic dictionariesdictionary useencodingdecodingretentionresearch methodsreplicationmenushighlightingnoiseaccessentry lengthPhilology. LinguisticsP1-1091Languages and literature of Eastern Asia, Africa, OceaniaPL1-8844Germanic languages. Scandinavian languagesPD1-7159AFDEENFRNLLexikos, Vol 22, Pp 195-216 (2012)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	AF DE EN FR NL
topic	paper dictionaries electronic dictionaries dictionary use encoding decoding retention research methods replication menus highlighting noise access entry length Philology. Linguistics P1-1091 Languages and literature of Eastern Asia, Africa, Oceania PL1-8844 Germanic languages. Scandinavian languages PD1-7159
spellingShingle	paper dictionaries electronic dictionaries dictionary use encoding decoding retention research methods replication menus highlighting noise access entry length Philology. Linguistics P1-1091 Languages and literature of Eastern Asia, Africa, Oceania PL1-8844 Germanic languages. Scandinavian languages PD1-7159 Anna Dziemianko Why One and Two Do Not Make Three: Dictionary Form Revisited
description	The primary aim of the article is to compare the usefulness of paper and electronic versions of OALDCE7 (Wehmeier 2005) for language encoding, decoding and learning. It is explained why, in contrast to Dziemianko's (2010) findings concerning COBUILD6 (Sinclair 2008), but in keeping with her observations (Dziemianko 2011) with regard to LDOCE5 (Mayor 2009), the e-version of OALDCE7 proved to be no better for language reception, production and learning than the dictionary in book form. An attempt is made to pinpoint the micro- and macrostructural design features which make e-COBUILD6 a better learning tool than e-OALDCE7 and e-LDOCE5. Recommendations concerning further research into the significance of the medium (paper vs. electronic) in the process of dictionary use conclude the study. The secondary aim which the paper attempts to achieve is to present the status of replication as a scientific research method and justify its use in lexicography.
format	article
author	Anna Dziemianko
author_facet	Anna Dziemianko
author_sort	Anna Dziemianko
title	Why One and Two Do Not Make Three: Dictionary Form Revisited
title_short	Why One and Two Do Not Make Three: Dictionary Form Revisited
title_full	Why One and Two Do Not Make Three: Dictionary Form Revisited
title_fullStr	Why One and Two Do Not Make Three: Dictionary Form Revisited
title_full_unstemmed	Why One and Two Do Not Make Three: Dictionary Form Revisited
title_sort	why one and two do not make three: dictionary form revisited
publisher	Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal-WAT
publishDate	2012
url	https://doaj.org/article/13176fbf4d404a6e8672ab2ebbf770e8
work_keys_str_mv	AT annadziemianko whyoneandtwodonotmakethreedictionaryformrevisited
_version_	1718373855659032576

Why One and Two Do Not Make Three: Dictionary Form Revisited

Ejemplares similares